The Emerging Child-Care Issue

By GEORGE J. CHURCH

Something has to be done soon to help working parents care for their children -- and the Federal Government cannot avoid playing a role. With those propositions there is suddenly no longer any serious disagreement. Michael Dukakis says so, and so do Jesse Jackson and, mutedly, George Bush. In Congress, legislation is being pushed not only by liberal Democrats but also by Senator Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican who normally cannot be found within miles of any proposal to increase social spending. Most surprising, the Reagan Administration, after seven years of virtually ignoring the problem, is now pulling itself together to develop some sort of pro-child-care position.

So is there a consensus? No. Despite agreement that Washington must do something, the question of what ignites differences that burn beneath mere partisanship to issues of deep ideology. For example, should the Government be encouraging women to work and turn their children over to someone else's care? Thus child care is potentially one of the hottest topics of the presidential $ and congressional campaigns. Unlike debates over the budget or trade policy, this one hits millions of voters directly where they live. "The issue of child care is politically ripe," says Secretary of Labor Ann McLaughlin, who has almost single-handedly prodded a lethargic Administration into starting to take a position.

Nearly 20 million mothers of minors are working, including 57% of those with children under six. Many are unable to find anyone to care for their offspring at a price they can afford: an estimated 7 million latchkey children spend all or part of the day alone because their parents cannot get somebody to mind them. Those who can find care are frequently bitterly disappointed with its quality.

All three presidential candidates are dropping in on day-care centers to dramatize their concern. Jackson proclaims in every speech, "We can either fund Head Start and child care and day care on the front side of life, or welfare and jail care on the back side of life." He offers a program of federal subsidies and tax credits calculated to extend day care to 2.6 million additional children, more than double those who would be helped by the most ambitious proposal advanced by other Democrats.

Dukakis has found child care a big help in humanizing his rather aloof image. On the eve of the Ohio primary last week, he visited a center in Cincinnati and led children in a rousing chorus of Itsy Bitsy Spider. Though he has not spelled out a detailed policy, he points to the state-sponsored program he developed as Governor of Massachusetts, the most comprehensive in the nation. Over the past three years, it has increased placements in state- licensed centers by 20%, to 117,000 Bay State youngsters.

Bush, for the moment at least, is in a bind. Asked for his views on child care recently, the Vice President quipped, "I'm for it," before more seriously voicing deep concern. Right now all he can do is promise to make a major speech on the issue in June and put forth some guidelines (no new federal bureaucracy; help only to the poor, not the middle class) that will shape his position once he has one.

Bush's mushiness stems from the fact that the Administration is deeply divided over the issue. On one side are McLaughlin and others, who see child care as a workplace concern. On the other side are more ideological conservatives, who resist proposing anything that might be interpreted as discouraging women who want to stay home with their children. Thus Education Secretary William Bennett, at a congressional hearing last month on child care, spent much of his time outlining what kind of approach the Administration would not accept. Key conditions: the bill must not discriminate against families in which a parent stays home, and it must not favor day-care centers over home care by relatives. Many conservatives suggest vouchers that could be given to a grandmother or an aunt as well as to a day- care center.

Under constituent pressure, legislators have introduced more than 100 bills dealing with child care in one way or another. The two leading ones are opposing Senate plans (with House counterparts) offered by Connecticut Democrat Christopher Dodd, with 37 cosponsors, and Republican Hatch, with 15 cosponsors.

The Dodd bill, of which Dukakis generally approves, calls for a $2.5 billion appropriation the first year and "such sums as may be necessary" thereafter. States could use the cash only in child-care programs that were approved by the Federal Government and run by licensed practitioners. Parents with family incomes of up to 115% of the median for their state would be eligible. The bill is thus a classic expression of Democratic philosophy: heavy spending (more than the Government can afford in an era of giant deficits, say critics) on programs tightly controlled by Washington. In an example of the passions aroused by child care, Anti-Feminist Phyllis Schlafly, head of the Eagle Forum, hysterically thunders that the Dodd bill would "Sovietize the American family by warehousing babies" in day-care centers.

The Hatch bill is an equally clear expression of Republican philosophy: restricted federal spending (totally inadequate, say liberals) and local control. It would provide $375 million the first year in the form of block grants to states, which could be spent in any way they wished as long as it was for child care. Among other things, the money could be made available to church programs; the Dodd bill would allow churches to receive federal subsidies only if they refrained from promoting religion in any way. Hatch would also give a tax credit of up to 25% to businesses that set up child-care facilities on their premises, and grant triple tax exemptions for each child that a parent cared for at home. These provisions could easily make the Hatch bill cost far more than $375 million a year when lost tax revenue is included. Liberals insist that Hatch's triple tax exemption would be almost meaningless for poor families, who do not pay high taxes.

Odds are that no legislation will be passed until the voters have chosen which President will sign or veto it. That is another reason that the issue is likely to be important in the fall campaign.

With reporting by Jerome Cramer and Hays Gorey/Washington